The Press: Year in Review

A Look at the Ups and Downs of the Media in 2005

Jay Rosen , author of the blog PressThink and a journalism professor at NYU, was online Friday, Jan. 6, at noon ET to review an eventful and tumultuous year in the media. Rosen will reflect on the White House Briefing controversy involving the Post ombudsman, the political writers, columnist Dan Froomkin and bloggers, perceptions of the press by the news-reading public, Internet news trends and the New York Times wiretapping story and leak investigation.

The transcript follows.

_______________________

Essington, Pa.: Your take on the Froomkin controversy?

Jay Rosen: My take is that a newspaper that argues with itself, and with the bloggers (ho have arguments) is ultimately better off than one where no such disruptions are permitted by the priests in charge.

The political writers at the Post were making an argument. They did it through the Deborah Howell's ombudsman column. Then John Harris, the editor in charge, took up that argument himself, carrying it into the blog world.

Dan's not a White House reporter, and "White House Briefing" is a misleading name for what he does. Here's why. That's all they wanted to say.

But I don't think it was as carefully made as it could have been, should have been.

Journalists like John Harris find it genuinely hard to accept that they are being judged on their political thinking, assessment and role in Washington, as well as their reporting and journalistic work. They think, "that's just it, I am a reporter, my politics aren't in my journalism." The adequacy of that attitude is under pressure today. In my opinion, it no longer works as an answer.

The question raised by the controversy over White House Briefing at the Post is: what are the real boundaries of the "White House press" and what does the beat include today, in the information world we're coming into now? For me, Digby and Captains Quarters are part of the White House press. But my interests are different from John Harris and the Post reporters.

I think it took a lot of guts to do what he did-- make an argument. How high does the blogosphere want to make the penalty for important journalists--and Harris is that--when they try to talk with it? I guess I am left with that.

____________________

Bath, United Kingdom: Bill Keller has made it rather painfully clear that his his eventual decision to publish the NSA domestic spying story was based at least in part on the realisation that the administration's assurances - to the effect that "everyone involved" was satisfied "that the program raised no legal questions" - were not in fact true.

He can hardly expect his readers to believe either that (a) the Times didn't bother to obtain its own legal opinions or that (b) the opinions it obtained backed up the administration's assurances.

None of his other reasons for suppressing the story became either more or less valid during the "year" in which he sat on it, so is he not admitting that he would not have dared to embarrass the Bush administration without believing he had the support of a fair number of people within the White House and/or security services?

Jay Rosen: Your question is a good one. You're asking what kind of political judgment was Keller showing, along with his journalistic and boss-of-the-newsroom decisions.

Ultimately a move like, "but we don't believe the program is of sound legality; therefore it is news" is a political decision for the Times itself. Do we confront the government's definition of reality on this now, or later? And one of the things you ask is: how much support do we have?

This is part of Bill Keller's decision-making. But it's not talked about. The Times has taken the stoic and silent approach.

watch our pages. Maybe they have to somehow. We don't know.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Your interview with John Harris evoking his memorable outburst at the idea that Dan Froomkin's reporting is heroic compared with that of the "real" Post reporters was greatly appreciated. As long as The Post reporters in these LOL chats, the new Ombudsman and the Editorial Writers maintain their defensive refusal to admit that they are thoroughly intimidated by this administration,which holds the threat over their heads of calling them "Liberals", the longer The Post will disgrace itself as it fails to do its part in the fight save our Democracy.

Jay Rosen: Actually, one of the places I fault John and Deborah Howell is neither seemed sufficiently aware that calling out "liberal bias" to explain why an online journalist like Froomkin is giving Bush a hard time might not be a wise thing to do, especially because it is the very thing the White House might do to discredit you at a later date!

How can you be a White House reporter today and not recognize that discrediting you is part of the way the Bush coalition does business in the political theatre of our time?

_______________________

Paris, France: Is there a connection between the live coverage of the West Virginia mining disaster and the coverage of religious reactions in general in the U.S. this year? Nationally televised news programs seem to be showing religious groups which support extremist political positions more often on the air: A survivor of a tornado who evokes God's will or a mother saying that her son who believed very strongly in the Bible was shocked to be told at school that humankind was descended from "monkeys" ?

Jay Rosen: Hmmm. Well, I will tell you this. For all the use of the word miracle, an openly religious term, news reporters didn't try to tell us how many among the families thought the twelve men were rescued by God and had their faith confirmed, and then disconfirmed. The church is in the narrative. The religion going on there is not.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: As far as the media go, I think it could be argued that the most common strand in the various media controversies is the use of unnamed sources. Do you see the same thing? Is the problem getting worse, or just more noticed? Is it even a "problem?" If so, how do you suggest to fix it?

Jay Rosen: The most experienced and qualified journalists we have--and these are people who know a lot about how Washington works-- will all tell you that without confidential sources the true story of what's going on would just suffer. And so they know there are problems with anonymous sources-- but they're endurable and necessary. It's hard to argue with that.

And yet confidential sources may be killing you, all the same.

I think the way is open for an abolitionist press, if you'll forgive the expression. It's the news organization that develops a brand by only using on-the-record and public sources. You stand out in a crowded field with a more transparent ethic than the guys down the street.

Now your experienced and qualified journalists will say to you, "You'll miss tons of stories the guys down the street are giving their readers."

But that's the whole point, to miss those and develop your own.

_______________________

Ashland, Mo.: When the New York Times and others use anonymous sources, the reader has to rely on the publication. Given the many instances of misreporting on other issues, why should the national security issues be thought any more reliable?

Moreover, to what extent is it unreasonable for the reader to believe those leaking to the media are simply disgruntled government workers who are upset that their methodology, which they developed and approved, has been rejected by new superiors because the superiors concluded in light of events that the methodology was not adequate to meet current exigencies?

Additionally, if the superiors' views are correct, what accountability exists for the media's aiding and abetting of violations of law other than prosecution of these aiders and abettors?

Jay Rosen: Considering the possible motives of sources is, in a first class news organization, routine; and I would assume the Times did a lot of that. You have to if you are to understand what the sources are not telling you that you also need to know.

But remember: they had a lot of sources: 12 for some of it.

In this story the Times made judgments of many different kinds. Included in that are, I believe, national security judgments. These are not announced but dissolved in newsroom decision-making; they're part of bringing the story to print. And in this case, the Times is not talking about them. It's a big burden to decide these things for all these reasons.

_______________________

Tecumseh, ON: Immersed in a story journalists cannot help but 'flavour' their interpretation with, not only what they are discussing, but sub-consciously with what they also know and are not necessarily discussing in a given story. Not a deceit, just human.

The acid test for any story could be the MIS-take (MIS 'man in street') He or she does not know, accesses the media to get information ... but do we close the loop by soliciting MIS-takes to ascertain the interpretation/effectiveness of the information. Is what the public understands what you intended to convey? What about a couple of MIS-takes quoted after a story ... perspective for the public, 'feedback' for the writer

Jay Rosen: Journalists are supposed to add new stuff to our understanding, not re-cycle or reflect it. On the other hand, they have to speak our language, and stay within common sense, or who's gonna listen to them? This is one of the tensions in the craft.

_______________________

Re: West Virginia tragedy: "news reporters didn't try to tell us how many among the families thought the twelve men were rescued by God and had their faith confirmed, and then disconfirmed"

Jay, perhaps the press should spend a little more effort on their responsibility to get the story right (and not just report rumors), and a little less effort on taking a poll to see who's lost their faith in God.

Jay Rosen: Unquestionably getting the facts right is the first job. I'm telling you that if your job as a journalist is to find out what happened in that church you best be aware of how miracles are received there. The clergy were told, according to some accounts, and asked to inform the families. They didn't inform the families. What's going on there?

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I think that many who are complaining about The Post not being what they want are just spoiled by the times The Post was just doing its job. It is still just doing its job, but for reasons that escape me, they expect it to take a partisan position. I expect some to say "You got rid of Nixon. Why not Bush?"

But it never was that simple. It took Nixon to do his part.

My opinion is that the Post is still a great paper and I read it every day - even when I don't agree. But that is when I write.

Question?

Why did the liberals turn against The Post? The differences are very slight.

Jay Rosen: I don't think liberals have "turned against the Post," in some general sense. But liberals who have turned against the paper have more printing presses than they once did. Many more.

_______________________

How high?: The concept of how "high the penalty should be" is exactly the issue.

How high was the penalty for Judy Miller retyping administration Iraq spin? She was paid major bucks for years to apparently do that. Then when she was caught, the NYT covered for her for another year or so, and finally let her go with a huge golden parachute. Odds are good she'll get another big bucks job.

I work as a senior IT professional. I make good bank. If I retyped vendor marketing materials and sold my company on an expensive system that ended up failing, I'd get canned. Immediately. I might even get sued for damages, so they would recoup the money paid me. I'd have a black mark next to my name and really lose my career.

Watching "Goodfellas" I realized that the "name" media in this country is much the same. Henry Hill's speech at the end scores it exactly (the bit about "now I'm just a regular schnook"). Media players are Goodfella, loaded up with money and privilege, and screeching at the first sign of accountability...or being just another "regular schnook".

Until that is changed, all the rest is just hot air.

Jay Rosen: If your observation is that the news is too often a defective product and standards of workmanship have fallen below what society can reasonably expect, I kinda agree with that. I mean look at Jonathan Klein, head of CNN saying he was perfectly happy with CNN's coverage of the mining disaster.

_______________________

Birmingham, Ala.: Will the management of major newspapers continue to fight bloggers, or will they get onboard the idea that First Amendment rights extend to Web publishing?

Jay Rosen: I think what newspaper people primarily worry about is having to put their good name on what some blogger is typing. That scares them.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I think the press has done a good job this past year with many of the stories it uncovered, such as secret prisons, wiretapping, etc. Of course, its a tough call. For example, the NYTimes gets criticized for sitting on the wiretap story, but on the other hand, looked what happened to Rather a year before on his story. Maybe they were just being overly cautious and its not political? Your thoughts?

Jay Rosen: I think, as many have said, the paper deserves a lot of credit for doing it.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us today.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.